Following is a fascinating look at IQ and politics from the 2004 presidential race between George W. Bush and John Kerry.

Pardon the overlap of the “Nevada” row. That was a Macromedia faux pas on my part.

Here is a statement from the website in which I just sourced:

The purpose of this webpage is to provide better state IQ data than what had been available – not politics. These IQ’s follow elementary school test results. The most likely reason for the lower IQ’s in southern states is the high proportion of Blacks in those states. African-Americans consistently test at an average 85 IQ level. Since Blacks overwhelmingly vote Democrat, it is difficult to find an IQ-political spin in the chart above. Also on southern states a viewer has provided government data on mental retardation rates being higher there. See also government data on state minority percentages, in response to a professor’s reaction to this paragraph. Also see Gallup/ CNN data showing that Bush got the vote of a majority of college grads.

Another viewer has weighted the above results by population, producing a definite increased IQ/ Democrat correlation. A different viewer has analyzed the same results by looking at the actual percent Rep/Dem voting results in each state, and he concludes from his colorful charts that. “the IQ trendline is agnostic about the candidate.” Perhaps all this is evidence that statistics can be massaged to produce a variety of conclusions! The best voter IQ picture may be from an analysis including population and voting by ethnic groups.

We don’t have to study this chart long to realize the breakdown between IQ in Democrat-voting states versus red states. Indeed, unlearned types like Mark Levin, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and others currently choking talk radio fuel the frenzy of irrational, backward-thinking notions on a daily basis, and to put it mildly, the right does not have erudition on its side. Those who are among the right’s inteligencia are in the minority. They may actually have some salvageable ideas, but again, they are drowned out by the screaming masses, when, in the lack of anything intelligible to add to the public discourse, rant to a fevered pitch, which, is understandable, since, when reason and logic fail, it’s their one and only defense.

The Associated Press ran a story today about a Washington ingathering of progressives, who were at the capital to protest what they perceive as President Obama’s handling of the health care bill, the wars in the Middle East and other initiatives, largely claiming that the president has been too soft thus far regarding the Democratic cause. I know that some conservative readers of this site might balk at that notion, since many Republicans, indeed, believe Obama is so far in no-man’s land politically that he is, with clenched hands, steering the country ever toward a socialist state. But we shouldn’t forget that, just as there are those on the fringe right who still question Obama’s citizenship, among other zany polemics, progressives say Obama hasn’t gone far enough on many issues.

According to the article:

They faulted Obama for the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the slow pace in repealing the ban on gays serving in the military and last year’s economic stimulus package, which they described as inadequate at $787 billion. They also criticized his handling of the Gulf oil spill.

“The White House has been an uncertain trumpet,” said Robert Borosage, a co-director of the Campaign for America’s Future, a progressive organization. “The administration’s reforms were too often too timid from the start and too readily compromised along the way.”

While I tend to agree, at the same time recognizing progressive nut cases can exist right alongside conservative ones, I say that without taking a more moderate stance on health care, the stimulus and others, Obama could not have accomplished the goals he has thus far. Thus, while health care reform may not have gone far enough — to include a public insurance option, for instance — it was an important start, and I can’t quite fathom that the progressive protesters wouldn’t have picked up on this point, mostly because without Obama compromising a bit, he wouldn’t have been able to convince some within his own party to sign on to reform, namely the Blue Dogs and others. So, while he is certainly one of the more progressive presidents we have had in the last half century, he’s also one of the most cunning and learned, recognizing that without adding first, the body, then wheels, then the seats, then the horses, there may never have been a cart in the first place. And if he is not re-elected or if a conservative takes his place and proceeds to disassemble the cart bit by bit, it may be all, disappointingly, for naught, dragging us evermore back to the stone age from whence we have grudgingly crawled since the Enlightenment.

Since Tuesday will mark the most active day this primary election season, with residents from 11 states heading to the polls to select which House, Senate and gubernatorial candidates they want to see in the general elections, set for Nov. 2, I thought I might run down where we’re at right now. On Tuesday, votes will be taking place in California, Arkansas, South Carolina, Iowa, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, South Dakota and Virginia.

Obviously, as the general election nears, the big question is whether Democrats will continue to hold majorities in both houses of Congress. The New York Times in this graphic estimates whether each of the 435 up for grabs in the House and 36 in the Senate are either solidly Democrat, solidly Republican, toss-ups or leaning one way or the other. In the House, 114 seats fall outside of the solid category and are either leaning toward the Reps or Dems or are toss-ups. On the Republican side, 164 will most likely stay red, and on the Democratic side, 157 will most likely stay blue. The party with 218 seats will have a majority.

In the Senate, 17 seats are uncertain. Forty-eight are solidly for Democratic and 35 are solidly Republican.

Here is how the 11 primaries set for Tuesday break down:

• Arkansas — House, toss-up; Senate, leaning Rep
• California — House, solid Dem; leaning Dem
• Iowa — House, leaning Dem; Senate, solid Rep
• Maine — House, solid Dem
• Montana — House, solid Dem
• Nevada — House, solid Dem; Senate, leaning Rep
• New Jersey — House, solid Dem
• North Dakota — House, toss-up; Senate, solid Rep
• South Carolina — House, leaning Rep/Senate, solid Rep
• South Dakota — house, leaning Dem/Senate, solid Rep
• Virginia — House, solid Rep

In addition, all but 13 states will vote in new or returning governors. These races seem more contested, with only seven solidly Rep or Dem. Thirty are listed as toss-ups.

Needless to say, this election could be critical as to whether President Obama can get any other major initiatives passed during his remaining tenure. Already, the health care bill barely passed without a single nod of approval from the right, that would be to say, in spite of Republicans. If the right captures a majority in either house, future measures, including energy or immigration reform, could be doomed before they get hatched.

NPR has a large collection of stories covering many aspects of the primaries, including the rise of anti-government and anti-incumbent sentiment that has swept, interestingly but not surprisingly, a number of Republican women, in Palin’s wake,  into the fray, with 14 women on the right already headed for battles for Senate seats. Here’s a feature on that topic.

The most fateful piece of legislation since FDR’s New Deal programs in the 1930s and the Civil Rigths Act of 1964, the Senate version of the health bill (already passed in the Senate on Dec. 24) passed the House of Representatives by a 219-212 (To correct something: I believe I said previously that it still needed to be approved by the Senate, but that body has already voted on it), and here is a map from The New York Times on how the vote broke down across the nation:

Credit: The New York Times

Obviously, the most progressive parts of the country are easy to pinpoint, and less progressive folks, rabble that are easily roused, were clearly on display this weekend, heckling lawmakers and making fools of themselves. After all, when mind power and logic isn’t a person’s strong suit, all that’s left is emotion.

So, what now? Well, the House (still in session as of late Sunday) will vote on the reconciliation bill, which will then go to the Senate for approval. The one that was just approved is one and done and will now go to the president’s desk.

The perceived blowback from all this is complete conjecture, no matter what the talking heads might say. As I noted in the last post, the Congressional Budget Office has already released its cost estimate for the bill, but all other theses — impending socialism, uncontrolled debt and, in the most extreme cases, the destruction of America, are the products of guesswork and attempts to inject fear into the public about the bill. Folks said the same thing after FDR’s New Deal programs, and we’re still here.

I, personally, am not to going to live in fear or loathing of the government, its programs or anything else. As I’ve noted to friends, if we have the resources to help people, in this case, 30 million, we should; damn the politicians, and damn the lobbyists who line their pockets. Calls from Mark Levin, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity and others that we are headed toward socialism are laughable. Too many of those same politicians have a vested interest in the capitalistic status quo that they would never let us take their money.

What if the bill is flawed? If parts of the bill are not working, the parts can later then be retooled; this has been the story of decent legislation made better down through the decades. The key, after nearly a century (!) of debate on the topic, was action, and we saw historic action today, regrettably, without Republicans. Clearly, parts can be made better, and we can leave it to lawmakers to improve the bill. As Jim Wallis, author of Rediscovering Values: On Wall Street, Main Street, and Your Street — A Moral Compass for the New Economy (www.godspolitics.com) said,

… despite the very flawed health-care bill coming up for a vote this weekend, and the even more flawed processes that we will witness during its debate and vote, I believe (as does Sojourners) that something is better than nothing, and that this bill will hopefully be only the beginning of a process, and a first step toward comprehensive health-care reform. We simply cannot walk away from the 30 million people without health-care coverage who would benefit from this bill. And it is absolutely clear to us that simply doing nothing and letting the opportunity pass once again for beginning to reform the health-care system is a formula for everyone’s health care getting worse — more people being uninsured, higher premiums for those with insurance, continually diminishing benefits for us all, more family bankruptcies, and more people literally dying without proper health care.

I’m not quite as “bleeding heart” as this guy, but something clearly had to be done. When we, as a country, keep folks uneducated, poor, unhealthy and frightened, we can more easily control them. The measure of a strong government, however, is when we have a health, educated and thriving body politic, as Tony Benn said in the movie, Sicko, in this telling interview:

A 1948 leaflet issued in England, as read by Benn:

“‘Your new National Health Service begins on the fifth of July. What is it, how do you get it? It will provide you with all medical, dental and nursing care. Everyone, rich or poor, man, woman or child can use it, or in it part of it. There are no charges, except for a few special items. There are no insurance qualifications. But it is not a charity. You are paying for it mainly as taxpayers, and it will relieve your money worries in times of illness.’ Now somehow, the few words some of the whole thing up.”

Now somehow, the few words sums the whole thing up.”

I saw a bumper sticker that said this a few days ago, so I figured I would try to find the source. I don’t know if Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) is the original source, but he’s at least one. Here’s a video of Grayson making a speech Sept. 29 on the House floor:

The second part of the “plan,” “die quickly,” is probably a bit over the top, but the basic logic is that, if you do get sick, with or without insurance, you should hope to be summoned by the Grim Reaper as soon as possible so as to not send your entire family into financial ruin.

By the way, I just glanced over a couple of the You Tube comments below this video and one reads:

Wow Grayson really treats his audience like they are very intelligent and capable of understanding complex issues.

Grayson was a bit scathing, but his frustration comes through I think. Why should House members be treated like they are intelligent and capable of understanding complex issues? They haven’t earned it. They haven’t acted in a bipartisan manner (and an argument can be made that, until recently, neither has President Obama), but it’s a well known fact that insurance companies carry a lot of weight on The Hill. The plain-as-day fact is that many lawmakers have a vested interest in keeping the status quo regarding health care and have neither the uninsured or insured in mind.

When thinking about social conservatism or the Tea Party crowd and the like, I’m often struck by the mountain of contradictions implied by their ideologies. On some points, they say small government is the way to go. On other points, they tout more government intervention. The implication is, itself, a non sequitar. Anyone who can’t see the contradictions in the Republican Party’s stances on moral issues (pro-big government) versus its stances on national economics (con-big government) needs to look again and realize that the Republican Party is one ball of ideological contradictions.

Here are some Republican causes, divided into their contradictory parts:

For more government intervention, fight against:

• Abortion
• Gay rights
• Stem cell research
• Immigration reform
• The separation of church and state
• Drugs

For less government intervention, fight for:

• The deregulation of Wall Street and other economic sectors
• Gun rights
• Tax cuts for the rich but not for the middle class
• Limited or zero health care reform.

What is with the propensity to come up with comic book, superhero names for political factions, politicians and generals in Washington? Down through history, we have:

• “Old Rough and Ready” (Zachary Taylor),
• “The Railsplitter” (Abe Lincoln),
• “Old Hickory” (Andrew Jackson),
• “Young Hickory” (James Polk),
• “Sage of Monticello” (Thomas Jefferson),
• “Sons of Liberty” (anti-Loyalist group in American Revolution)
• “Copperheads” (anti-Civil War, pro-peace and possibly slavery faction of the old-school Democrats)
• “Blue Dogs” (current right-wing faction of the modern Democrats, once known as Dixie-crats”)

There are actually many more of these sorts of nicknames. The most recent to my knowledge has been this anti-health-care reform faction of Democrats known as the Blue Dog Coalition. The Copperheads, or the Peace Democrats, actually strike me as a similar group to the Blue Dogs. Although the party today and the party in the mid-19th stood for vastly different ideals, I see similarities. As we know, the Republicans in the mid-19th century were the more progressive, generally anti-slavery faction, while the Democrats were generally in favor of the South and for maintaining the institution of slavery.

The Copperheads wanted to the Civil War to end and blamed it on the abolitionists. They wanted peace, to their credit, but that would be at the expense of allowing the institution to continue. They said Lincoln was abusing his powers as president. Bizzarely, the most prominent Copperhead faction was the Order of the Golden Circle (the Golden Circle being the perceived and wished for circle of slavery extension from the southern United States around through a portion of South America back around to the South), and its most prominent politician was Clement L. Vallandigham, who was exiled in Canada for awhile.

The Blue Dogs, thus, are the fiscally conservative wing of the Democratic Party, as it exists today, but they are also, to their discredit, the more lobbied group by the health care industry:

… more than half the $1.1 million in campaign contributions the Democratic Party’s Blue Dog Coalition received came from the pharmaceutical, health care and health insurance industries, according to watchdog organizations. — Democratic Underground

and, like the Copperheads, are speaking out against the president taking too many liberties to expand federal power.

Given their ties to the health care industry, the Blue Dogs have largely adopted stances against health care reform. Go figure.

An intriguing, but for the most part, altogether common-sense, article on party identification and what perceived personal and societal shifts in affiliation mean for the body politic suggests that when voters change their minds, it is largely due, not to studying the issues, but to a “vague sense of how things are going with the economy and the presidency”:

They have not shifted because they have calculated that their current party is out-of-synch on some specific policy stand. Others of them have shifted because they simply like Barack Obama. They won’t be able to articulate exactly why they dislike one party and like another, they just ‘know’ they prefer one.

Not to suggest this exhausts the reasons why voters choose certain parties over others, but I would have to agree here, that most of these folks are “nature of the times” voters who likely had no strong party affiliation to begin with, if they had any. In fact, this scenario is quite analogous to religion in some ways. Many churchgoers or religious types (or casual attendees) won’t be able to articulate why they believe in a higher power without running themselves into a tautology or infinite regress or relying solely to ancient texts steeped in mythology and lore without outside validation. Like religious folks, most voters pull the lever based on where they were born or who they were born to without giving the slightest amount of scrutiny to their position, and of course, as this article mentions, relying on opinions that do not challenge, but validate one’s own stance. This, of course, doesn’t describe all, but at this point, we can probably say most, and heck, some even decide based on the likeness of certain candidates to themselves. I thought this quote from the David Brooks column, linked above and here, was telling:

“People often act without knowing why they do what they do,” Daniel Kahneman, a Nobel Prize winner, noted in an e-mail message to me this week. “The fashion of political writing this year is to suggest that people choose their candidate by their stand on the issues, but this strikes me as highly implausible.” — The New York Times, David Brooks, “How Voters Think”

The map from pollster.com shows the increase in the number of Independents in the country over the course of the last several months,

and I would say that an underlying reason by the surge is, again, what I just mentioned. Folks are disillusioned with the Republican brand, given the general failure of the last administration and the comic book line up of candidates we had in the last election cycle (a soccer mom; war hero; Mormon; former mayor, turned 9/11 hero/advocate, the list goes on) that, since they have (had) a flimsy foundation on which to base their views, they couldn’t slip over to the dastardly left (For, they don’t know why they disagree with that side either), so they just default to the Independents, or worse, the ranks of the apathetic.

It’s disheartening that more GOP members overwhelmingly voiced their opposition to the Obama administration’s $787 billion stimulus plan. They, of course, made it clear why they did it: not enough (or the right kind of) tax cuts, an “orgy” of spending, as Lindsey Graham dubbed it, etc etc. Despite President Obama’s numerous statements that he would like the bill to be a bipartisan effort, I think it was a rancor move by the GOP to so overwhelmingly vote against it, as if to say, “We can’t have it our way? Fine. We’ll take our cookies and go home.”

Republicans did have an alternative, which was John McCain’s $421 billion plan that focused more on cutting income and payroll taxes and less on spending. Critics like to rail that we shouldn’t just throw money at the problem and that the best way to fix some of our economic woes is to give more tax cuts to businesses, thus creating jobs. But here’s the rub: That sounds like a good idea, but our problems are much larger than job creation at this point. Some of our most basic institutions are in dire need of assistance. This bill, indeed, “throws money,” quite rightly, at three such areas, among others:

Education — In my home state (South Carolina), local school districts are scrambling to make ends meet amid widespread budget cuts from the state. Local officials seem to be doing a good job, at least in the county I live in, of cutting wherever necessary without having those cuts affect what happens in the classroom. But if the cuts continue, what happens in the classroom will eventually be affected, whether it be from cutting teacher salaries and benefits (some of this has already happened) thus not attracting quality educators … from making reductions in the quality of supplies, books and the like to save some cash. The current bill offers $44.5 billion to help local districts attempt to delay cutbacks and layoffs.

Health care — Giving tax cuts to small business is fine, but many small businesses can’t afford private health insurance, and Cobra is outrageous. The bill offers a 65 percent subsidy for those on Cobra, among other provisions, like assistance for states to continue funding Medicaid. One case in my state was that of Medicaid-funded hospice care. The state said it would discontinue paying on hospice, thus forcing those with chronic conditions to visit hospitals, rather than get cheaper home care for their conditions. One child with cerebral palsy was costing $131 per day to be treated by hospice professionals. His mother was paying with Medicaid. Had hospice been dropped, she would have taken him to the hospital or other doctors for the care he needed. One day in the local hospital here for him would have cost Medicaid more than $1,000. It makes fiscal sense to do all we can to keep Medicaid well-funded, lest folks with chronic conditions are forced to settle for indignant care at local hospitals, given the ballooned cost of basic health care. What sort of drain would it mean for the economy if hospitals across the country tanked because there was no system like Medicaid in place to help meet the needs of people who require expensive treatment just to keep them alive? Medicaid is not the least of the institutions which needed money “thrown” at it.

Unemployment — Again, this state’s jobless funds are in trouble. The bill provides $40 billion for states’ unemployment benefits.

(The above information about the stimulus plan comes from this AP report.)

Thus, the Obama administration’s bill is really more than just an economic stimulus; it’s a wide-sweeping plan to not only help put more money in individual pockets, but to bolster some of our most basic, and critical, institutions. It’s also at least a beginning to a potential fulfillment of one of Obama’s campaign promises: to fix broken schools, broken health care and broken infrastructure. It’s far-reaching. Why Republicans see this as a bad thing is a mystery. There were certain elements about it that I question. I haven’t checked if these were eventually axed, but they include:

• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion pictures;
• $650 million for the digital television (DTV) converter box coupon program; and
• $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees. (From: CNN.com)

The Republicans’ notion of smaller government sounds good in theory, but in critical times like this, it’s simply inadequate for such weighty problems. It’s equivalent to if there existed only one small hospital and one hotel in a large metropolis: the institutions are dwarfed by the need. In times like these, the notion of small government breaks down.

It’s also interesting to note that politicians and talking heads who tout such an idea are on board when it comes to certain areas (gun control, financial deregulations, for instance) and all for government intervention in other areas (abortion, gay rights, censorship, for instance). They are all for that silly notion of trickle down economics (Let’s not actually help the poor and middle class too much, let’s wait for the rich’s resources to run down the pipeline. We saw how well that worked as banks and lenders greedily operated almost unchecked, darn near running our entire financial system into the ground. They were clearly interested in funneling some of their cash our way, huh?). Yet, in the latter areas, some on the right believe government has (and should have) a monopoly on morality and seem to think we can’t take care of ourselves and that we should read our Bibles more. The contradiction is shocking.

Regardless, the bill passed to the chagrin of many and will supposedly create about 3.5 million jobs, along with “throwing money at” struggling institutions. We can only wait to see how it will pan out, but what was needed was sweeping reform that tackles many critical areas at once, and right or wrong, this bill gives us that.

I think it’s good some of these provisions were axed from the stimulus bill. Some of this stuff is just goofy, i.e.:   law enforcement wireless (How will this stimulate the economy?), $98 milli0n for school nutrition (?), $50 million for exploration (of what? Exploring how to better the economy?), historic preservation,  homeland security, etc etc.

Here’s what’s been partially or wholly cut …

Partially cut:

• $3.5 billion for energy-efficient federal buildings (original bill $7 billion)

• $75 million from Smithsonian (original bill $150 million)

• $200 million from Environmental Protection Agency Superfund (original bill $800 million)

• $100 million from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (original bill $427 million)

• $100 million from law enforcement wireless (original bill $200 million)

• $300 million from federal fleet of hybrid vehicles (original bill $600 million)

• $100 million from FBI construction (original bill $400 million)

Fully cut:

• $55 million for historic preservation

• $122 million for Coast Guard polar icebreaker/cutters

• $100 million for Farm Service Agency modernization

• $50 million for Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service

• $65 million for watershed rehabilitation

• $100 million for distance learning

• $98 million for school nutrition

• $50 million for aquaculture

• $2 billion for broadband

• $100 million for National Institute of Standards and Technology

• $50 million for detention trustee

• $25 million for Marshalls Construction

• $300 million for federal prisons

• $300 million for BYRNE Formula grant program

• $140 million for BYRNE Competitive grant program

• $10 million state and local law enforcement

• $50 million for NASA

• $50 million for aeronautics

• $50 million for exploration

• $50 million for Cross Agency Support

• $200 million for National Science Foundation

• $100 million for science

• $1 billion for Energy Loan Guarantees

• $4.5 billion for General Services Administration

• $89 million General Services Administration operations

• $50 million from Department of Homeland Security

• $200 million Transportation Security Administration

• $122 million for Coast Guard Cutters, modifies use

• $25 million for Fish and Wildlife

• $55 million for historic preservation

• $20 million for working capital fund

• $165 million for Forest Service capital improvement

• $90 million for State and Private Wildlife Fire Management

• $1 billion for Head Start/Early Start

• $5.8 billion for Health Prevention Activity

• $2 billion for Health Information Technology Grants

• $600 million for Title I (No Child Left Behind)

• $16 billion for school construction

• $3.5 billion for higher education construction

• $1.25 billion for project based rental

• $2.25 billion for Neighborhood Stabilization